In an attempt to prove the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints ranch in Texas was abusing children, a photo of Warren Jeffs, the sects imprisoned leader, kissing a young girl is shown. This is how you know that the case that the Child Protection Agency of Texas has against the ranch is faulty. If there is evidence of abuse than it should be clearly stated. A photo of the sects leader provides us with a stereotyped vision of the sect and should no be part of the evidence.

First of all, Warren Jeffs is in prison. A photo of him kissing a girl that appears to be under aged is silly. Jeffs was not on the ranch when it was raided and where is the prove that the girl he is kissing in under aged. Even if she is under aged, Warren Jeffs was not on the ranch when it was raided so why is the picture a piece of evidence?

I don’t know if there was any child abuse on the ranch but I believe there was some form being practiced. However, this photo has nothing to do with whatever happened on the ranch. Find evidence of the abuses that took place on the ranch and prosecute the people that carried them out. Do not prosecute the people that did to take part in them.

Saving that all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe the same thing is stereotyping and discrimination. Find out who did what, get proof. That is the way that a criminal trial goes. You can not just pull out a photo and say that the leader, who was not even on the ranch may be married to under aged girls and that is that evidence. Do some real investigating and make a case. This extreme speculation is not going to fly in a court of law.

Initially when all of the children were put in protective custody I thought that the state of Texas had done a good thing. Now there are major doubts in my mind. I am beginning to think that the state of Texas has no proof of abuse. If they had good prove surely they would not be using this photo.

Religious believes are always controversial, no matter what religion it is. There will always be someone who is against the religious practice of others. I am not against anyone’s religious practices but I am against child abuse. Now I want to know if the state of Texas went in and removed children form loving homes and put them in foster homes or if there was abuse. If the case should go in the favor of the parents then I think that the state of Texas has made a big mistake. If there is reason to take children from their parents then there should be some good solid evidence as to why they were taken. Otherwise the state of Texas has played with the lives of over 400 children.

3 Comment(s)

1) There definitely was child abuse in this matter — over 400 cases, in fact. Sadly, it was perpetrated by the Texas CPS itself. Removing children from parents and syblings like this is extremely traumatic. If it doesn’t meet the legal requirements, then it’s clearly abuse. 2) All CPS decision-makers in this matter should be fired or required to take classes on the trauma these forced separations cause to families. They also should be required to take a basic legal course on the laws involved. If they already had the above, they are obviously unfit custodians of the welfare of children and their employment with CPS should be terminated. The state legislature should investigate this. 3) The legal system finally worked, but it took far too long! Appeals in these cases need to be expedited. The emotional costs to the victims are too high. 4) So far, the financial costs of this are $7 million. This will run well over $100 million! Wait until the lawsuits start! Since CPS did not meet ANY of the legal standards for this action, it was tantamount to kidnapping. 5) Definitely child abusers should be identified and prosecuted. The authorities, however, should remember that in the USA we still require EVIDENCE.

How about the paternity of the kids? Maybe the DNA can show who the fathers are and the state can force them to support their offspring instead of all these “single” moms drawing welfare checks. How else can this compound sustain itself but for taxpayer support?